Karnataka High Court
M/S United India Insurance Company ... vs Sri Srinivasa @ Seena on 8 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:461
MFA No. 3620 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3620 OF 2014(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
P.B.NO.88, 1187/947,
2ND FLOOR, RUB BUILDING
A.A.CIRCLE, B.H.ROAD,
SHIMOGA,
NOW REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
M.M.K.COMPLEX, AKKAMAHADEVI ROAD,
P.J.EXTENSION, DAVANAGERE- 577 001.
REP BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. LAKSHMINARASAPPA K.S., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. A. M. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
AASEEFA PARVEEN 1. SRI. SRINIVASA @ SEENA
Location: HIGH S/O. BHOJA NAIK,
COURT OF AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
KARNATAKA
AT PRESENT NO WORK,
(EARLIER WORKING AS AUTORICKSHAW DRIVER
AND AGRICULTURIST)
R/O BIDARAHALLI VILLAGE,
HONNALI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 001.
2. THIPPESHI,
S/O. VENKATAPPA,
AGE MAJOR,
DRIVER OF VANI BUS
BEARING NO.KA-20-AA-4444,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:461
MFA No. 3620 of 2014
R/O. MASUR VILLAGE,
HIREKERURU TALUK
HAVERI DISTRICT - 581 110.
3. SIRASAPPA GOGI,
S/O VASAPPA GOGI,
AGE MAJOR,
OWNER OF VANI ROADWAYS AND
OWNER OF VANI BUS
BEARING NO.KA-20-AA-4444,
R/O 1ST CROSS, GANDHINAGAR,
SHIMOGA - 577 201.
...RESPONDENTS
(R1 TO R3 ARE SERVED)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.1.2014 PASSED IN
MVC NO.104/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
& MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, HARIHAR AWARDING A SUM OF
RS.5,72,131/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF
PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.Lakshminarasappa K.S. who represents
Sri.A.M.Venkatesh, learned counsel on record for the appellant.
Though notice was served upon respondents No.1 to 3, none
represents.
2. Aggrieved by the order that is rendered by the
Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Harihar in MVC
NC: 2025:KHC:461
No.104/2011 dated 24.01.2014, this appeal is preferred by the
insurance company.
3. The insurance company disputes its liability to pay
compensation to the injured claimant i.e. respondent No.1
herein.
4. The matrix of the case as projected by respondent
No.1 (hereinafter be referred to as the 'claimant' for the sake of
convenience of discussion) is that on 23.12.2010 while he was
proceeding in his goods auto bearing Registration No.KA.17
A.9673 from Anjanapura to Harogoppa village and while he was
driving the said goods auto, a bus bearing Registration
No.KA.20 AA-4444 came in the opposite direction driven by its
driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against his
auto, due to which he sustained injuries.
5. Arguing on the merits of the matter, learned
counsel for the appellant submits that though the appellant
produced sufficient evidence to establish that entire negligence
lies on part of the claimant and due to his negligence in driving
his auto the accident occurred, yet the Tribunal fastened
liability against the appellant and therefore this appeal is
NC: 2025:KHC:461
preferred. Learned counsel also states that the Tribunal failed
to appreciate the evidence that is brought on record properly,
more particularly the evidence of RWs.1 and 2 and also Ex.R1-
Map. Learned counsel also states that the claimant was not
having proper licence to drive a transport vehicle. Learned
counsel also contends that it is the claimant who dashed his
vehicle against the bus. Learned counsel thereby seeks to
exonerate the insurance company from liability to pay
compensation.
6. Record discloses that the Tribunal subjecting the
evidence of PW1, RW1, RW2, Ex.P1-FIR, Ex.P2-Complaint,
Ex.P3-Further Statement, Ex.P4-Mahazar, Ex.P6-IMV report
and Ex.R1-Map to scrutiny came to a conclusion that the
accident occurred due to the negligence of the drivers of both
vehicles. The Tribunal also held that the negligence is in the
ratio of 50:50.
7. It is not in dispute that the driver of the bus
admitted his guilt before the competent criminal court. The
Tribunal at para 10 of the impugned order made a clear
mention that when RW1 was cross-examined by the claimant,
NC: 2025:KHC:461
he admitted that the driver of the bus had admitted his guilt
before the Court of Judicial Magistrate of I Class. The Tribunal,
having discussed at length with regard to the manner of
happening of accident basing on the evidence produced, came
to a conclusion that negligence lies on part of the drivers of
both vehicles i.e. auto rickshaw and the bus. This Court does
not find any grounds to hold that entire negligence lies on part
of the claimant and he is solely responsible for the accident to
occur.
8. Having considered the evidence produced and the
discussion that is made by the Tribunal with regard to each and
every aspect of the case and the findings given basing on such
evidence and exhibiting an opinion that the conclusion arrived
at by the Tribunal is proper on all aspects, this Court is of the
view that there are no grounds to interfere with the well
reasoned order of the Tribunal. Though learned counsel also
argued with regard to the amount that is awarded as
compensation and held that the said amount is excessive,
however, having considered the evidence of PW2 and the
relevant medical record produced by the claimant, this Court is
NC: 2025:KHC:461
of the view that the amount awarded as compensation is highly
justifiable.
Therefore, this Court ultimately holds that the appeal
lacks merits.
Resultantly, the appeal stands dismissed.
The amount, if any in deposit, be transmitted to the
concerned Tribunal immediately.
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
AP
CT:TSM
